Farmers where I come from are generally the owner and the worker. They already get the “full” value generated.
Funnily enough due to the government paying them, this allows the manufacturers and stores to drive down the price of goods (when bought from the producer).
The main idea behind this was to drive down the value of goods for the consumer and to ensure the EU produces food locally, but it has created an ugly transfer of wealth where manufacturers and stores now earn more. Consumer barely sees the difference.
So most likely something should change for manufacture and vendors as well if the system was to be made fair.
Locking prices for manufacture and vendors is not a thing. Giving subsidies to them will stifle competition.
Agriculture subsidies do help producers compete with China, US and other outside markets, but at the cost of reward for labor.
I think the system is not oppressive, but it certainly is not fair. Issues crop up in the middle of the value chain and there are no easy solutions.
If farmers produce food by working lands they own, then they are not being exploited by land owners.
However, as you observe, under our currrent systems, the value they realize from their labor is determined by food prices, as resolved by markets through which food is commodified.
Businesses that exploit workers also participate in commodity food markets.
Thus, as long as food is produced by profiting from worker exploitation, and is exchanged through commodity markets, all food production and distribution is bound to the profit motive, and therefore subject to distortion away from satisfaction of human need for survival and flourishing.
I believe practices such as the one you describe, in principle may serve to mitigate some such distortions, and to advance the interests of the working class.
Unfortunately, EU states, as other states around the world, have now fallen under neoliberalism, which simply exacerbates the wealth transfer from workers to large owners that is already inevitable as a structural consequence of relations under capitalist production and distribution.
Now, you have not answered my question.
Is profit not antagonist to the values you espouse?
Yeah, EU is slipping. We need to pay attention to the flaws that we’ve been introducing.
I don’t find profit to be an inherent antagonist. I believe that workers (even CEOs) need to be rewarded for good work. This is where profit comes in. Without profit there can be no pay rises when job experience and responsibilities increase.
Unchecked profits on the other hand… This comes in many shapes. Tax havens and top-heavy distribution of profit spring to mind immediately. These are counter-intuitive.
It is acceptable for the company owners to receive most profit as they have taken the largest risks in terms of capital. However, things like inheritance, bonuses and stock options can distort the degree of risk taken. A newly-hired megacorp CEO will not have taken significant monetary risk relative to the founder.
Systems should be in place to reduce unfair wealth distribution. Eg. Stock options should be given to the entire company workforce rather than just the top dogs. Annual bonuses should apply to all.
Profit-seeking drives innovation and efficiency. These to me are good values as we look for incentives to fight climate change or improving working conditions. Obviously legislation must follow suit and ensure it provides structures that encourage this while protecting people from skewed power hierarchies.
Profit is the share of value removed from wages, that is, removed from pay given to workers, who provide the labor that generated the value in a business, by business owners, who contribute no labor for generating the value in the business.
Profit is generally speaking invested back into the business. This manifests in various forms. You hire more staff next year, increase pay of existing staff, buy repairs, invest in new tools and so forth.
Sure some profit is paid to stock owners in dividends, however this stock was bought from the company at some point. In exchange the company had received money to sustain its workforce and business. It is a fair exchange for the risk the investor was willing to take.
You’re only thinking of very large businesses. Not all companies are on the stockmarket. Numerically, most are not.
All stock originates from the business. Even big business. It was all bought from it at some point. If you don’t know how stocks work, please go read. It’ll help you understand.
A business benefits greatly from being bought. Many fledgling companies get funded by investors buying stock. Often these investors will also act as advisors and critical connections to the company’s target markets. This helps companies grow enough to be able to provide jobs which generate more wealth.
Publicly traded companies still experience similar benefits even though at this point most stock gets traded. However, public trading can increase company value. Increase in company value gives possibilities where they might dilute the value of stock by creating more. There are many methods for this, which I don’t have the energy to teach you.
However, the process of creating and selling these stocks acts as a cash injection for company.
If you want to dismantle or regulate this system, you better learn how it is built. Not knowing about this will not do anyone any favours. Your ignorance makes you complicit.
Your objection is dishonest, and you are projecting a cocky attitude, which is not supporting constructive discussion.
I in particular am not considering only businesses traded on the stock market, but rather I simply responded to your analysis that specifically targeted such businesses.
Your explanations continue to sidestep the objection I raised, and obscure the deeper structure and relations with misleading language. They represent a business as an entity distinct and autonomous from its owners, and in a relationship with them.
Owners of a business confer no benefit to the business. Their investments are not wealth being transferred from investor to business, the way someone might transfer funds to a friend or retailer. Similarly, stocks are not provided or created by business, as may be goods or services a business creates through the labor of workers. Investment is the purchasing of assets, representing the business itself, of which the investor then becomes the owner. Stocks are simply a representation of ownership over a business.
There is no feature or event that is beneficial to a business in spite of not being beneficial to the owner, because a business is nothing except that which is owned by its owners, for the private interests of its owners.
Businesses exist for one reason, profit.
Please reflect sincerely, before responding, and lose the snooty tone.
Calling me names for asking how people are dying due to actions of the food industry isn’t something that will help affect my choice of words. Sorry for sounding cocky after that. Showing me you seemingly didn’t know how stocks are created and then sold by the company helped set the stage.
Businesses exist for a number of reasons, legal and personal. A business can exist without profit as long as its expenses and earnings meet. So I wouldn’t say businesses exist for profit.
It is up to each individual how they run their business. This also applies to whether they sell shares to outsiders. Best we can hope to do is through legislation try to make sure there aren’t feedback loops that reinforce skewed power dynamics and negative behaviour.
You’ve said your piece, I don’t think I agree. I’ve said mine, I don’t think you agree. That’s about it. Keep on rocking in the free world.
Farmers where I come from are generally the owner and the worker. They already get the “full” value generated.
Funnily enough due to the government paying them, this allows the manufacturers and stores to drive down the price of goods (when bought from the producer).
The main idea behind this was to drive down the value of goods for the consumer and to ensure the EU produces food locally, but it has created an ugly transfer of wealth where manufacturers and stores now earn more. Consumer barely sees the difference.
So most likely something should change for manufacture and vendors as well if the system was to be made fair.
Locking prices for manufacture and vendors is not a thing. Giving subsidies to them will stifle competition.
Agriculture subsidies do help producers compete with China, US and other outside markets, but at the cost of reward for labor.
I think the system is not oppressive, but it certainly is not fair. Issues crop up in the middle of the value chain and there are no easy solutions.
If farmers produce food by working lands they own, then they are not being exploited by land owners.
However, as you observe, under our currrent systems, the value they realize from their labor is determined by food prices, as resolved by markets through which food is commodified.
Businesses that exploit workers also participate in commodity food markets.
Thus, as long as food is produced by profiting from worker exploitation, and is exchanged through commodity markets, all food production and distribution is bound to the profit motive, and therefore subject to distortion away from satisfaction of human need for survival and flourishing.
I believe practices such as the one you describe, in principle may serve to mitigate some such distortions, and to advance the interests of the working class.
Unfortunately, EU states, as other states around the world, have now fallen under neoliberalism, which simply exacerbates the wealth transfer from workers to large owners that is already inevitable as a structural consequence of relations under capitalist production and distribution.
Now, you have not answered my question.
Is profit not antagonist to the values you espouse?
Yeah, EU is slipping. We need to pay attention to the flaws that we’ve been introducing.
I don’t find profit to be an inherent antagonist. I believe that workers (even CEOs) need to be rewarded for good work. This is where profit comes in. Without profit there can be no pay rises when job experience and responsibilities increase.
Unchecked profits on the other hand… This comes in many shapes. Tax havens and top-heavy distribution of profit spring to mind immediately. These are counter-intuitive.
It is acceptable for the company owners to receive most profit as they have taken the largest risks in terms of capital. However, things like inheritance, bonuses and stock options can distort the degree of risk taken. A newly-hired megacorp CEO will not have taken significant monetary risk relative to the founder.
Systems should be in place to reduce unfair wealth distribution. Eg. Stock options should be given to the entire company workforce rather than just the top dogs. Annual bonuses should apply to all.
Profit-seeking drives innovation and efficiency. These to me are good values as we look for incentives to fight climate change or improving working conditions. Obviously legislation must follow suit and ensure it provides structures that encourage this while protecting people from skewed power hierarchies.
Profit is not pay for work.
Profit is the share of value removed from wages, that is, removed from pay given to workers, who provide the labor that generated the value in a business, by business owners, who contribute no labor for generating the value in the business.
Profit is generally speaking invested back into the business. This manifests in various forms. You hire more staff next year, increase pay of existing staff, buy repairs, invest in new tools and so forth.
Sure some profit is paid to stock owners in dividends, however this stock was bought from the company at some point. In exchange the company had received money to sustain its workforce and business. It is a fair exchange for the risk the investor was willing to take.
Profit isn’t a boogieman.
Stock is not bought from a business, and purchases of stock, and making an investment, are not acts of providing funds to a business.
You are expressing a misconception, by representing a business as an autonomous entity, separate from its owners, and in a relationship with them.
A business cannot benefit separately from its owners.
A business is simply that which is owned by its owners.
A business benefits from being purchased by its owners no more than your shoes benefit from being purchased by you.
Business exists for one reason only, profit.
The profit motive is the driving force behind every business, and distorts and constrains all possibility within it.
You’re only thinking of very large businesses. Not all companies are on the stockmarket. Numerically, most are not.
All stock originates from the business. Even big business. It was all bought from it at some point. If you don’t know how stocks work, please go read. It’ll help you understand.
A business benefits greatly from being bought. Many fledgling companies get funded by investors buying stock. Often these investors will also act as advisors and critical connections to the company’s target markets. This helps companies grow enough to be able to provide jobs which generate more wealth.
Publicly traded companies still experience similar benefits even though at this point most stock gets traded. However, public trading can increase company value. Increase in company value gives possibilities where they might dilute the value of stock by creating more. There are many methods for this, which I don’t have the energy to teach you.
However, the process of creating and selling these stocks acts as a cash injection for company.
If you want to dismantle or regulate this system, you better learn how it is built. Not knowing about this will not do anyone any favours. Your ignorance makes you complicit.
https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/investing/what-are-stocks-how-they-work#:~:text=Stocks are shares of ownership,your long-term financial goals.
Know your enemy.
Your objection is dishonest, and you are projecting a cocky attitude, which is not supporting constructive discussion.
I in particular am not considering only businesses traded on the stock market, but rather I simply responded to your analysis that specifically targeted such businesses.
Your explanations continue to sidestep the objection I raised, and obscure the deeper structure and relations with misleading language. They represent a business as an entity distinct and autonomous from its owners, and in a relationship with them.
Owners of a business confer no benefit to the business. Their investments are not wealth being transferred from investor to business, the way someone might transfer funds to a friend or retailer. Similarly, stocks are not provided or created by business, as may be goods or services a business creates through the labor of workers. Investment is the purchasing of assets, representing the business itself, of which the investor then becomes the owner. Stocks are simply a representation of ownership over a business.
There is no feature or event that is beneficial to a business in spite of not being beneficial to the owner, because a business is nothing except that which is owned by its owners, for the private interests of its owners.
Businesses exist for one reason, profit.
Please reflect sincerely, before responding, and lose the snooty tone.
Hey all allright.
Calling me names for asking how people are dying due to actions of the food industry isn’t something that will help affect my choice of words. Sorry for sounding cocky after that. Showing me you seemingly didn’t know how stocks are created and then sold by the company helped set the stage.
Businesses exist for a number of reasons, legal and personal. A business can exist without profit as long as its expenses and earnings meet. So I wouldn’t say businesses exist for profit.
It is up to each individual how they run their business. This also applies to whether they sell shares to outsiders. Best we can hope to do is through legislation try to make sure there aren’t feedback loops that reinforce skewed power dynamics and negative behaviour.
You’ve said your piece, I don’t think I agree. I’ve said mine, I don’t think you agree. That’s about it. Keep on rocking in the free world.